It's time for BIG cuts in our military

Id just like to stroll in and ask you what you think 900 billion dollars can do for a country. Then ask, no DEMAND what it will do for it to be spent on them and thier security. so far we have rabid dogs barking about thier rights to homicide and to spend 900 billion surrounding a mass grave. 900 billion dollars spent on nothing but aid is your war spending I dream of leave you guns at home bring your men and your spirit and arm our men to fight OUR war if we see it fit.

Do not come in with guns because I will shoot you.

 

Let me put it this way if you cant see this truth. I cry for both sides of war and your cry only for one and detest the other. You see thier act of war and justify yours for years and years to come. The way we must act is fight a war on humanity and to give people what they NEED.

If we are dealing with needs we need someone to believe that its worth it to spend 900 billion dollars in places thughout africa where they die of water born illnesses we can cure and that we can prevent.

If you have trouble making this right then calculate a 15% sales tax on your countries sales. Then calculate the taxes on income and assets. Then ask where the (*)(*)(*)(*) did all this money go without significant results.

The problem with your government is that they listen to people WHO WANT WAR and not the people who dont want it. For it can be seen as true that a terrorist could ahve taken the entire united states and make it history now more than ever. If you claim you war made terror stop then you are a liar or utterly foolish OR evil.

 

Granny wonderin' what dey got to be worried `bout us?

Chinese military paper lays bare fears about US
Fri, Apr 01, 2011 - COMING TO AMERICA:The PLA’s Chief of General Staff will travel to the US, following on from US Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ recent trip to Beijing

 

America needs to cut the size of the military budget so that it can reduce the size of Obama's budget deficit. The country is insolvent. We can't have what we can't pay for.

 

Do I infer correctly that if we had the money then we should have such a gargantuan military? that the only reason to reduce the military is that we don't have the money & not because we simply don't need it?

 

Your inference is incorrect.

 

Good. I'd have appreciated a bit of explanation but I'll take what I can get.

 

It is my opinion that are military is justly sized based upon the constent threat we are under. I do believe though, that our troops should be sent to diferent locations to provide a more secure nation. Along some of our borders would be a resonable idea. Out of the 4 reasons for forming our Government listed in the preamble of the constitution, our military is a factor in 3 of them.

If we are talking about human life capital, lets have our military protect our citizens from being found in mass graves along the Mexican Border.

 

Accountable is exactly right. This Cold War mentality is eating away at the United States and digging the country deeper into the military-industrial complex.

The Navy should be the primary instrument of power projection, as as Acc said there is no actual need for military bases everywhere to enact foreign policy.

 

As to your first comment about the cold war mentality. I wish to say that although we live in fear of attack, there are subtle diferences that diferentiate our current status to that of the cold war. Firstly we are no longer in fear of all out invasion. Large military tank units and anti-invasion forces usual to conventional warfare are obselete and have been slowly disbanded. Instead, with the emergence of contemporary or urban warfare a new mentality has taken hold.

We no longer build large stock piles of unused equipement, but instead are creating more advanced and stream-lined gear to make our soldiers safer. The military-industrial complex, is a necessary arangement that provides thousands of jobs in the private industry by which the American economy is stimulated. It is a great way for our tax dollars to find their way back into our hands.

Also, foreign military bases are a necesity. It takes days, weeks, and even months for a navy ship to traverse an ocean to arrive at a military conflict. No plane or ship can replace having soildiers on the ground. Having bases located strategically around the world allows us to react quickly before situations escalate beyond control.

 

All out invasion was not a fear present in the Cold War either - more specifically, I was talking about the mentality that the US is the sole Western power in a bipolar world. This is simply not the case; there are other major Western powers or power blocs in the form of Europe, Japan, and India.

The "more advanced and streamlined gear" is just an excuse to push perfectly workable materiel into surplus so it can be sold to tinpot kleptocracies.

The military industrial complex is unsustainable as it hinges upon demand for materiel, versus other endeavours like food and services which are pretty much always in demand.

And having bases located strategically (though I wouldn't call bases in Okinawa or Britain "strategic") is cracking the economy and causing ire towards the US internationally. It's time for the other powers to pick up the slack.

As I've said in another thread, I envision a three sphere solution. The US handles affairs in Latin America, India and Japan handle Asia, and Europe handles Africa. The powers can call on each other if need be, but in essence it removes the need for international bases and places the onus on power projection which can be provided by carriers.

 

If the US withdrew its forces from abroad, there would be numerous power vacuums. This would cause military tension in a given region to escalate, perhaps to the point of conflict.

 

Hence the need for the other powers to step in and pull their weight.

 

What do you mean?

 

I mean that the other great powers should step in and do what the US does (a bit more intelligently though) within their sphere of influence.

 

>>>Since there are regional conflicts in just about every corner of the world as it is, and since our military is spread out all over the world, our military presence doesn't seem to be much of a deterrence.

 

It's a major deterence. Knowing that a CBG and MEU can show up on your doorstep within 24 hours if you misbehave is something that crosses a lot of "rogue" leaders minds. When was the last significant war with global consequences?

 

WWII - know what changed? Nuclear weapons.

 

Uh....there's been more than dozen wars with 1 million plus casualties since then. I'm referring to post cold war U.S. power. There's no competing powers to jump at each other's throats.

 

This would only inflame regional military tensions, thereby increasing the probability of armed conflict and global instability.

 

That, and the US filling the power vacuum the world over. That was the whole point of the cold war.

 

Not in the least, if the world powers or blocs of powers are balanced appropriately general warfare is entirely avoidable and far less likely to happen. Moreso with the introduction of nuclear weapons which has made total war between great powers undesirable in the extreme.

 

None between any of the great powers, because of MAD.

 

If we leave a power vacuum somewhere, it's going to be filled. Our absence would create new incentives for countries and non-state actors to militarize and expand.

 

Well, as long as you have nukes, you should be fine...sorry third world and other miscellaneous countries with no nukes. Guess you'll just have to eat scraps from the regional hegemon's table, that is, if they condescend to allow you to have the chance to eat said scraps.

When the US is gone and China or Russia shows up, people will be thinking fondly of the good ol' days when the USA was the sheriff in town.